↓ Skip to main content

Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriella Airenti

Abstract

The concept of theory of mind (ToM) has considerably changed since its first proposal. The aim of first human studies was to understand how young children acquire the representation of others' mental states, in particular beliefs, and how they distinguish them from their own and from reality. The False Belief Task was designed to prove the acquisition of this capacity. According to children's performance in this test the acquisition of ToM has been attested at around 4 years of age. In last years it has been shown that using spontaneous response tasks also 15-month-old-children could attribute to an agent a false belief about the location of an object. These results have generated the puzzle of belief-ascription: Why do 3-year-old children fail the classical false belief tasks whereas much younger children show the correct expectation in the spontaneous response tasks? In this paper I shall argue that (i) infants and young children, when confronted with the two forms of false belief tasks do not face the same problem and (ii) behind the two testing situations there are different ways to understand theory of mind. I shall propose that what appears in infants is the natural human disposition to intersubjectivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 45%
Linguistics 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Philosophy 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,768,879
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,448
of 29,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,334
of 264,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#429
of 555 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 555 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.